I didn't watch the movie because I thought it was fascist propaganda. But that doesn't matter since I'm rating the game here. This is a simple wargame which is definitely luck heavy. However, it is also very thematic and this makes the game shine. Personally I would prefer historical artwork instead of bare breasted Spartans fighting in thongs, but the game is so much more fun when speaking and visualizing the movie quotes while playing a card. If every eurogame out there was replaced by a games base on an action movie, I think the gaming world would be a better place.

Neat strategy/war game. It's card-driven and therefore not historically correct (very random). For example in one session the player of France conquered all of continental Europe (incl. Moscow), while in another the Russians took Paris at around 1809. It's fun though.

It's meant to be a light game, but the rules prohibit it from being that. The 2nd edition update supposedly fixes all that, but I don't have that one.

Somehow I can't get past mission #9. The Germans have a dug-in Jagdpanther aiming at the road. Everytime I try to sneak them up, I roll bad random events and the day breaks, whereas my squad end up being in sight of two machine guns.

The game neatly encourages story telling. The following may sound strange, but because the game forces you to spin stories about the craziest events, the conversations appear less forced (when compared to serious story telling games for example). The game really relies on its players, so play it with boring/austere people and it will suck. It isn't much of a surprise that this game is loved by Italians or French and is hated by my fellow Germans (fortunately not including my friends).

Solid redesign of B-17, but with few mechanical troubles . The Japanese counters are confusing, because they display the Japanese names, while the rules mention them in their Allied code names. (There are also two planes labeled Ki-44.)

Overall the rules are laid out better than in B-17, but in keeping the game more realistic there are fewer encounters with fighters and more tables to consult, which is sensible, because weather, fuel consumption and navigation were more crucial factors than enemy resistance. However, the result is: Less action, longer play time.

This is a fast-paced naval wargame with astonishing graphics. I can't compare it with other naval cardgames, but I like this one very much for its smooth and exciting gameplay. Altough the overall strategy is determined for each side, the allotment of ships and therefore the tactics differ with every game. Have I already mentioned the great artwork?

Interesting game and situation. Classic hex'n'counter, but with various innovative systems added (attrition, command, retreat). Jon Southard adapted Richard Berg's original South Mountain series to this rather unique battle situation, and it simulates the fighting very well. The two day (full battle) scenario is very replayable, because of the variable methods of entering the armies. The game isn't much suited for solitaire play though.

I think this is an excellent game for casual or novice war gamers, or generally for people who enjoy light war games and I know these people exist plenty. I have to give credit to the designer who admirably condensed huge antiquated war game rule systems into an easily playable game which still manages to capture all the flair of these systems, while also keeping the game 'realistic'. These things for example can't necessarily be said about Tide of Iron. The game even incorporates a clever system for reacting to the opponent's moves and the components are awesome. However, it's just not my type of game, the resolution of attacks gives a too broad array of results, i.e. the game is very luck based and at least with the few units we had in our game you can't really stage a sophisticated attack or defense. For example breakthroughs in our game were generally only achieved by rolling high and having the right card which allows a unit to move extra fast. Maybe I'll still buy the German edition of the game, which will have a politically correct name, and by appearing next month will be the only German war game to be published in quite a long time. Or maybe I'll wait for one of the other titles in the series about conflicts I not yet have games about.

Topic: Players send out adventurers to slay dragons, and then try to share the loot.

Gameplay: Loot sharing has only one rule: If there is no consent after a short time given, nobody gets anything. The game is spiced up with a clever scoring mechanism and different abilies for the adventurers which add stealing and magical abilities (special rule-breaking powers). Fun with a talkative group.

This is a decent strategic game, it's only downside it being a little too scripted in the beginning of the war. The game play overall is pretty simple (for a consim), but the political rules are really a little too much. They are generally a bunch of exceptions to rules or restrictions for the players and can easily be overseen in play, because they are so many and it's hard to remember all in play. This pretty much shadows the enjoyment you can get from the game. For beginners I recommend to start the campaign in 1941.

Rock-Paper-Scissors variant. I don't know if there was the need for a variant, but variation is good and this game makes more sense than the original, if this is even possible. May need to spawn some pro players and nation-wide conventions to garner equal fame as Rock-Paper-Scissors.

Stupid, chaotic fun. If you play without the rule which forces people to make laser sounds, you shouldn't play at all. I like the 2nd edition artwork better, but that's just me.

Don't trust the bad comments! This game neither takes too long, nor can you be eliminated before you take your turn. Well, only if 3 people shoot at you, but that's just lame. Why play games with people like that at all?

First off avoid this game if you dislike lots of friction in a war game.

Then I think it's a little discriminating that the game assumes the Chinese are the aggressors. I don't think they would attack the Americans, why would they damage their own property? Apart from that the situation portrayed in the game is certainly interesting.

Of course there aren't many strategic options for the Chinese since they are trying to achieve a few goals as fast as possible and the Americans are mostly reacting to that. However, the play resolves around the random event table and the player reacting best to (not necessarily benefiting most from) these events will win. Luck resulting from these should equal itself out over the course of the game.

Is it really a surprise that the WAR AT SEA system works in a modern environment? Not really, since it is a strategic system and the unit ratings abstract in all technological equipment. It doesn't matter whether a higher attack value comes from more advanced aircraft, ECCM equipped missiles, etc.

As a final comment I have to note that the game does only resemble 6TH FLEET in the portrayal of politics factors and in its focus on contemporary conflict. Otherwise the game/combat system in RED DRAGON RISING doesn't have much in common with 6TH FLEET.

Build some armies, roll some dice, it's all for the good fun. I liked it very much when I didn't know much about other games. The secret objectives make it a "shorter" and more tense game than heading for "global domination".

Haven't played it in a while but would prefer it to many of this site's favourites.

- You draw chits instead of rolling the dice, which equals out the influence of luck to a certain degree- Great historical article- Counters are smaller, but color-coded (!)- Map is laminated paper, but the same size

Very innovative design and the start of a great series. Good as an introductory wargame. It's tense but not overly complicated.

This is a game where lots of random stuff (like 1500 different things) can happen to you. I like it, but seeing Puerto Rico as #1 on this site I don't understand how people here can honestly appreciate it that much. I prophesy that once it's not that "uh-so-rare" anymore bad ratings will start pouring in.

A friend asked if he could borrow it, and I sold it to him instead (for a super fair price). I can still play it whenever I want.

First off I think all four games published by AH in their Area Impulse series are great. Many people try to rank these games, usually with "Turning Point: Stalingrad" (TP:S from here on) or "Thunder at Cassino" (TaC) coming in last. However, each game is quite unique in itself, so comparing them directly is really buttocks.

The core of the Area Impulse games consists of players alternating in taking an impulse, i.e. fire or movement with any units starting in one area. After these units have taken their action, they are flipped over to the 'spent' side, which usually has a lower defense value making 'spent' units easier targets. That's simple, but players should still carefully plot their moves to avoid units getting smashed in an immediate counterattack.

The advantages of the Area Impulse system are, that combat is simple, because you only take two numbers, add a couple of modifiers (no more than five) and roll four dice (two per player). Furthermore the alternation of player actions reduce downtime and create a very dynamic and realistic play and battle progress. An added bonus is that the map having no hexes and being quite vivid, which might attract casual wargamers.

After "Storm over Arnhem" (SoA) and TaC which featured combat on a bigger tactical scale, it is unique for TP:S and later "Breakout: Normandy" (B:N) to depict a whole battle on an operational scale. Personally I think the Area Impulse system work best on a tactical scale, but nevertheless TP:S works well, too. The second unique aspect of TP:S is that units remain 'spent' for more turn, depending on their combat performance. Results vary from overrun (0 turns delay) to disastrously repulsed attack (4 turns delay). The randomly determined length of day and night was also revolutionized here.

TP:S also has a slightly above standard amount of chrome rules, for example German and Soviet artillery are resolved completely differently and Soviet reinforcements have to cross the Volga first which is more difficult if the Germans occupy observation points across the city or at the shore.

My two points of critique are that firstly the Soviet have to play really good to NOT lose the game after the first week, because if the Germans do as well as they did historically they'll win too soon. The Germans are more powerful than the Soviets on the first week of the campaign, but taking just the Southern part of Stalingrad and tearing a few holes in the Soviet Northern defense line shouldn't win them the game. Secondly the game plays for a long time and is very hard to be finished in one sitting, which in my opinion wasn't what the Area Impulse system was intended for. (The inventor of the system only created the first two games: SoA and TaC.)

Another word on the expansion counter sheet. Even including the extra counters shouldn't take the game to NOT be resolved after three weeks, which is the same period of time the base game covers. Wasting more than $10 on a sheet of cardboard is therefore ridiculous.

This game offers a very special approach to the players: Instead of giving a certain amount of choices each turn (like in modern games), you get all the famous ships of the conflict and complete freedom of action from Pearl Harbor to the final days of the IJN. After setting up the game and explaing the rules to my friend, we both set plotting strategy for about half an hour ...

This makes it a very fine game in my oppinion. Something like chess with dice to resolve "combat" and the Yamato/Iowa instead of the queen.

Doesn't appear to be good on first play. Repeated plays reveal that this game is basically a race to earn most VPs while placing stumbling stones in your opponents' ways and calculating risks (where to attack?, which city to abandon?). It might also appear that the game ends too soon, but my impression is that players attack too late. You shouldn't build up your strength before attacking, but watch for weaknesses in your opponents' defense (if they even have one).

Trick-taking card game fans! Burn your cards, buy this game and play for the rest of your life. Oh wait ... chances are you're already playing one game for the rest of your lives ... well, this should be the one.

I have an additional Fokker Dr.1 and Rickenbacker (Spad XIII), so it can be played with up to 6 people. A friend of mine has yet another two planes, and we enjoy playing it with 4 people 2 planes each.